A fact from Catharina Margaretha Linck appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 May 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Language like "transgender", "female to male transgender person", and "male assigned at birth" or "female assigned at birth" seems so contemporary to now (= early 21st century). Do we really know what happened at the time of this person's birth? And is the use of the "he/his" as the main pronoun justified on any grounds whatsoever (i.e. do we know that this was eirpreferred pronoun, or was it rather the case that e was a woman who lived outwardly as a man, but nevertheless identified as a woman)? Assuming that we can know things like this, I think the article needs citations to demonstrate how we know. At the moment the article indicates things like this: He served (disguised as a man) for example, and this simply does not read very well. Arided (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
I agree this needs a lot of work, simply rewriting so as not to impose 21st-century language when we know so little. I'll try to check some sources tomorrow. It would be especially useful to have the male name Catherina used. With just a few minutes research I've found several male names and a more complicated story, including periods lived as a woman and once when charged with desertion the soldier revealed biological evidence of female sex and was released rather than hung. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Overhauled. Could use more context, for sure. Anyone who's interested can read the one source and add/subtract/modify. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
